DescentBB

I posted a link to similar substantiating info above ... You want the point by point rebuttal? Read my link and Otherone's article. Each point is backed up with quite a bit of material.

I still say that he is a total fukn embicile for believing "There is no terrorist threat". What I find funny is that there are millions of naive Americans that will back him up because they want to believe what he is saying ... not because it has any substance to it. They want so bad to be 'open minded' that they close their minds to the truth.

Sirian wrote:

Ferno wrote:Ice. I've seen those 59 points. Looks like fingerpointing to me.

You find one point to criticize and so you dismiss them all? Wow.

Hang on a second man. I read through those 59 points and yes I picked one. but you must also remember that I don't have a whole lot of time for these boards during the week. those 58 other points are going to take me a while to digest (like three days or so). Another reason I picked that one is because it just stuck out. supporting closing some while supporting opening others? to me that just doesn't make sense logically.

Anyways, more later. work today was murder.

Ferno wrote:supporting closing some while supporting opening others? to me that just doesn't make sense logically.

Yeah. We must be missing some info.

sheepdog wrote:Sirian,

You've been preaching to the choir too long. Your standard of proof is embarassingly low! You watched Moore on TV so that means you know something about him?!

Bold Deciever, if you read this make a note. Sirian thinks tv watching is a basis for knowledge.

You're underestimating me. I'm the person for whom this forum was created. When Koolbear and Sup first put together the DBB, they asked me to participate as a forum moderator. I declined. Then they offered to give me my own section. "You can cover any subject you like." Took some coaxing, but eventually I said yes. I chose Ethics, Philosophy, and Commentary. The DBB has an editorial section because I asked for one.

That was a long time ago in a galaxy far far away, back when Descent was relevant to tens of thousands rather than merely dozens. I wish we could go back there, or rather, bring that forward to here, but no, that's out of reach. At least I can stop in from time to time and chat with folks I once knew, maybe even meet a fresh face or two, amazingly.

Have you ever seen "Canadian Bacon"?


- Sirian

No reply yet on the Bacon question. However, sheepdog has posted today on this topic. Let's take a look.

sheepdog wrote:I just want to share that I haven't watched Farenheit 9/11 because I am afraid of how badly it will make me feel.

As I pointed out in the other thread, I have seen Moore's previous movies, and I would be surprised if anyone who has posted in this thread wouldn't enjoy them.

You've got to be kidding, right?

I asked about Canadian Bacon for a reason. That was Moore's satire about the USA declaring war on Canada so that the President's poll numbers would go up. He made this film in 1995.

The first time I saw Canadian Bacon was before 9/11. I was flipping through the satellite channels looking for something to watch and came upon this political movie. The description of the premise sounded interesting, so I started to watch. I did not realize at the time (or indeed, until years later) that Moore had written, produced and directed this film.

What I DID realize at the time was that it was THE worst movie I ever watched, bar none. I said so to my father, who watched part of it with me. This was supposed to be a satire, but it wasn't funny. It wasn't clever. It wasn't in the mode of "Dumb and Dumber". It was merely dumb.

President of the US: "Can't you Rooskies revive the Soviet Union?"

Russian President: "No, Mr. President. You won the cold war. We give up. You should accept that and rule the world in peace."

Not exact quotes, mind you, but the dialogue was THAT BLOODY AWFUL, all the way through the movie. It was, bar none, the worst writing I have ever seen. I could not stomach watching the whole thing. I came in about ten minutes after it started, watched about an hour, then felt that I wasted more than enough time on that tripe and switched to something else.

President of the US: "Attack Canada? The American people will never go along with that."

Policy Maker: "Yes they will, sir. They will believe anything that we tell them."

Give me a freakin break already. This wasn't clever satire. It was blunt force trauma. I have never been LESS impressed by an entertainment item in my life. Looking at photos of the US flag in a toilet, some New York artist's idea of a clever statement, was more useful than watching this film.


Recently, when I learned that Moore had made that piece of crap film, I went back to take a fresh look. All of a sudden I understood it better. Michael Moore wasn't being sarcastic. He actually believes that crap. LOOK AT THE FILM. Pay attention. The points he was making in that film are the same points that he continues to make over and over.

"There is no terrorist threat."

"The American people will believe anything they are told."

"American presidents start ridiculous wars just to increase their poll numbers."

"The American people are a stupid, ignorant lot."

The irony? Moore even called his film company "Propaganda Films"!

Canadian Bacon was so stupid, it wasn't even worth feeling insulted over. I tried, I really did, to give it a fair judgement on the second pass. However, neither time I watched it did I ever laugh, not even one time. You have to work pretty hard to make a film that bad.

Sheepdog wrote:I'm not saying that you would agree with them, but I think it's likely that you would be stimulated by them and most of you would enjoy the dark humor and activism that characterizes them.

Stimulated?

sheepdog wrote:Sirian, Your standard of proof is embarassingly low! You watched Moore on TV so that means you know something about him?!

I said that I first encountered Moore on TV. You may want to read more carefully. Just because you judged O'Reilly by tuning in to a few minutes of his program once or twice does not mean that I MUST HAVE done the same from the other side. You are also way off the mark to assume that anybody who actually knows about Michael Moore MUST enjoy his work and find it stimulating. Think again.


- Sirian

This is about "There is no terrorist threat." An Interview segment about that comment.

..................................................

O'BRIEN: I'm just curious. You say there is no terrorist threat. And, actually, I read that twice. I was like, hang on. What? Let me go back (CROSSTALK)

MOORE: Yes. I put it in there twice just so you could read it twice.

O'BRIEN: Right. There is no terrorist threat.

MOORE: That's correct.

O'BRIEN: I think, for anybody, certainly for those of us who were here on 9/11 in New York City would say, what are you talking about?

MOORE: On, no,there was a horrible terrorist incident, tragic.

But to say that there's a general terrorist threat every day, that just isn't true. It's important for the news media to keep that going. I just -- I watched a crawl across the bottom -- where is this thing? Oh, there it is -- going across CNN this morning. By the way, how do you watch this thing and watch the TV at the same time?

O'BRIEN: If you're on a treadmill in the gym, it's actually very helpful.

MOORE: That's good.

O'BRIEN: But that's another story for another day.

(CROSSTALK)

MOORE: Well, of course, that would imply I would be on a treadmill in a gym.

(LAUGHTER)

O'BRIEN: But it sounds to me you're splitting hairs a little bit.

(CROSSTALK)

MOORE: No, this is what I was going to say, that this morning, you had on the crawl, it said, terrorists have the maps to camp sites and trails. Be on the lookout for terrorist strikes at camp sites.

It's like, every day, there's a new thing. They're going to fly model airplanes into buildings. And it's like, what is the purpose of whipping the people up with this kind of fear? You can't make good decisions. Rational fear is important. We do need to take precautions. We do need to -- there will be further terrorist incidents that will be just as tragic as 9/11. I hate that say that, but I think we all kind of anticipate that.

But to live our lives and to allow the Bush administration to use this horrible, tragic event as an excuse for everything -- let's drill Alaska for oil, all because of 9/11 -- we've become irrational about this.

Yup, he is a fukn moron.

Okay I'll do the second one since I'm lazy and it is easy to find on Moore's list.

Taken from Otherone's link a Dave Koppel web site with a link to a PDF file with the list.

2. Like all the other networks, Fox mistakenly said that Gore
had won in Florida. The first network to retract the Florida
mistake was CBS, not Fox.

Exactly the same as the one Iceman posted. Supporting evidence given... none.

From Moore's site.

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: Fox was the first network to call Florida for Bush. Before that, some other networks had called Florida for Gore, and they changed after Fox called it for Bush.

â??With information provided from the Voter News Service, NBC was the first network to project Gore the winner in Florida at 7:48 pm. At 7:50 pm ,CNN and CBS project Gore the winner in Florida as well.â?

Um, there's a difference between retracting the call for Gore and making the call for Bush. On the night in question, that difference spanned HOURS. They also retracted the call for Bush as the final precincts came in and his sizeable lead evaporated. Note that none of the news services swung the state back to a call for Gore. Retracting for one clearly does not equate to projecting for the other. There's that third status, "Too close to call", that you are overlooking in your reply.


- Sirian

I understand completely that the claim by Moore is misleading. He was however factual. Fox called it first by (WOW!) four minutes over CNN/CBS.
Like I say Moore says something and those who want to belive it means that Fox News is evil believe that right away.
Learn to think for yourself is my message.

Goob,

According to Moore, is there a terrorist threat or not?

I am not Michael Moore. I think he believes what I quoted from him above.

Would you agree that he is being intentionally misleading?

Like I say I haven't seen any of his movies so I can't comment.
In Stupid White Men he tries to stir up a sense of outrage but of course only tells you what he wants you to know about the subjects he covers.
It is an old saying but true. "There are two sides to every story". I think Moore is smart enough to know both of them but only presents one.

No. I do think that he intentionally used that phrase for shock value, hoping that it would cause his readers to read on trying to find out "what he means by that." (the quote originated from his book ya know) Unfortunately the anti-moores have eatin up that one liner like krispie kremes at a weight watchers convention.

I do think those that pull that quote without any context are intentionally being misleading

Moore does think we will be attacked again, he does think we should take precautions to prevent these attacks: He is merely against the daily terrorist threat aura that is created by the media in order to boost their ratings. There stories can really get ridiculous at times. I am convinced that they sit in board rooms thinking of new ways that the terrorists could attack us, find someone with a Ph.D who agrees, and then make it their top story.

Fear is useful, the kind of fear they try to instill inorder to boost their ratings is increadibly distructive.

I am statistically FAR more likely to die in a car accident tomorrow then a terrorist attack. I'm on the verge of just repeating everything form the last post I made on this issue, so please reference that for my opinion on the subject

Unfortunately the anti-moores have eatin up that one liner like krispie kremes at a weight watchers convention.

Goob wrote:Fear is useful, the kind of fear they try to instill inorder to boost their ratings is increadibly distructive.

That's called "news". I grew up in Washington, DC. I watched local news programs. They almost always lead with the murders. Why is that?

The local news in DC is wall to wall liberal, yet they still lead with the murders. Are they trying to frighten people? Depress them? If one were to watch the news and treat it not as news, but as an ACCURATE PORTRAYAL OF LIFE IN ITS ENTIRETY... Well, that's so ridiculous, it isn't worth elaborating.

See, Michael Moore has no faith in people. He thinks that people are really stupid. You can see that all over his movie, "Canadian Bacon". The movie hits that theme over and over, and the writing is so bad, it hits the theme on a larger level, that Moore thinks HIS OWN VIEWERS are stupid enough not to know the difference between his messages and ones that actually make some degree of sense.


I have more faith in people. I trust them to watch the news and be intelligent enough to know that news focuses only on certain things, and that they as viewers have a responsibility to keep those things in context, to keep them in perspective.


- Sirian

hmm...

"But to say that there's a general terrorist threat every day, that just isn't true. It's important for the news media to keep that going. I just -- I watched a crawl across the bottom -- where is this thing? Oh, there it is -- going across CNN this morning. By the way, how do you watch this thing and watch the TV at the same time?"


What I believe he is saying is basically there isn't car bombings going off every day, and that there is no pockets of fighting happening on US soil. That the terrorists have come in droves and are just causing havoc everywhere they go, shooting up cafes, malls and wherever they can unload their AK-47's.

That's just a educated guess from my point of view.

Fahrenheit shows Condoleezza Rice saying, “Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.” The audience laughs derisively.

Michael Moore pulls Condy Rice's quote out of context, abusing one line to further his interests. Now folks like woodchip who believe it is justified to abuse Moore in the way he abuses others have come along and done the same to Moore, pulling one line out of context and beating him senseless with it.

"There is no terrorist threat."

I cannot condone what these people have done to Moore without also condoning what Moore has done to Dr. Rice. I won't do that. I say both are wrong.


- Sirian

Oh, and one more point. I brought up the Rice issue before, and none of Moore's supporters stepped up to admit that he was wrong to do that. Yet now we see them defending him against the very same kind of move. Are Moore's supporters in favor of this tactic when used on their opponents, but against it when it is used on their allies? "Things that make you go Hmm."


- Sirian

Um Ford, you need to scroll down past the top of the page. The actual evidence is right on the page I linked. The PDF summary is just that, a summary. Here is the supporting evidence since you couldn't be bothered:

The film shows CBS and CNN calling Florida for Al Gore. According to the narrator, "Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guyâ?¦.All of a sudden the other networks said, 'Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.'"

We then see NBC anchor Tom Brokaw stating, "All of us networks made a mistake and projected Florida in the Al Gore column. It was our mistake."

Moore thus creates the false impression that the networks withdrew their claim about Gore winning Florida when they heard that Fox said that Bush won Florida.

In fact, the networks which called Florida for Gore did so early in the eveningâ??before polls had even closed in the Florida panhandle, which is part of the Central Time Zone. NBC called Florida for Gore at 7:49:40 p.m., Eastern Time. This was 10 minutes before polls closed in the Florida panhandle. Thirty seconds later, CBS called Florida for Gore. And at 7:52 p.m., Fox called Florida for Gore. Moore never lets the audience know that Fox was among the networks which made the error of calling Florida for Gore prematurely. Then at 8:02 p.m., ABC called Florida for Gore. Only ABC had waited until the Florida polls were closed.

About an hour before the polls closed in panhandle Florida, the networks called the U.S. Senate race in favor of the Democratic candidate. The networks seriously compounded the problem because from 6-7 Central Time, they repeatedly announced that polls had closed in Florida--even though polls were open in the panhandle. (See also Joan Konner, James Risser & Ben Wattenberg, Television's Performance on Election Night 2000: A Report for CNN, Jan. 29, 2001.)

(snipping a bit about the early calls costing Bush panhandle votes which isn't really relevant to this discussion)...

At 10:00 p.m., which networks took the lead in retracting the premature Florida win for Gore? They were CNN and CBS, not Fox. (The two networks were using a shared Decision Team.) See Linda Mason, Kathleen Francovic & Kathleen Hall Jamieson, "CBS News Coverage of Election Night 2000: Investigation, Analysis, Recommendations" (CBS News, Jan. 2001), pp. 12-25.)

In fact, Fox did not retract its claim that Gore had won Florida until 2 a.m.--four hours after other networks had withdrawn the call.

Over four hours later, at 2:16 a.m., Fox projected Bush as the Florida winner, as did all the other networks by 2:20 a.m.

At 3:59 a.m., CBS took the lead in retracting the Florida call for Bush. All the other networks, including Fox, followed the CBS lead within eight minutes. That the networks arrived at similar conclusions within a short period of time is not surprising, since they were all using the same data from the Voter News Service. (Mason, et al. "CBS News Coverage.") As the CBS timeline details, throughout the evening all networks used VNS data to call states, even though VNS had not called the state; sometimes the network calls were made hours ahead of the VNS call.

Mooreâ??s editing technique of the election night segment is typical of his style: all the video clips are real clips, and nothing he says is, narrowly speaking, false. But notice how he says, "Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guyâ?¦" The impression created is that the Fox call of Florida for Bush came soon after the CBS/CNN calls of Florida for Gore, and that Fox caused the other networks to change ("All of a sudden the other networks said, 'Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.'")

This is the essence of the Moore technique: cleverly blending half-truths to deceive the viewer.

[Moore response: On the Florida victory celebration, none. On the networks calls: provides citations for the early and incorrect Florida calls for Gore, around 8 p.m. Eastern Time, and for the late-evening network calls of Florida for Bush around 2:20 a.m. Doesn't mention the retraction of the Florida calls at 10 p.m., or that CBS led the retraction.]

(emphasis mine)

See, there's a bit more to Koppel's argument than just the bullet point from the PDF summary. Notice how Moore ignores the inconvenient 10 PM retractions that were started by CBS. Also, look how Koppel even provides a link to Moore's site so that readers can easilly go look at Moore's defense (looks like the same link where you got your info). Wouldn't it be nice if Moore had the same level of intellectual honesty?

Ford Prefect wrote:Like I say I haven't seen any of his movies so I can't comment.

Dood, You have to see Bowling for Columbine. Moore devotes a good 10 or 15 minutes to an extremely complimentary segment on Canadians and Canadian culture. Two highlights for me: Canadians' freedom from racial bias and well, I don't want to give away Moore's punchline. I have to admit I thought of Ferno and Merlin and wondered if they had seen it. I din't know you were Canadian until about an hour ago FP.

Triple post.

triple post

Mooreâ??s editing technique of the election night segment is typical of his style: all the video clips are real clips, and nothing he says is, narrowly speaking, false.

Which is why posting a list and calling the items on it lies is just as misleading as Moore's one sided commentary on the election. And why not list your sources at the end of the list? I appologize for not finding and following the link to the infomation you have posted. I should have been more thorough and saved you the bother.

I'll say it again. I have not watched Moore's movie because I don't need him to tell me how to think. I know how he works and it doesn't work on me. Even though I am what an American would consider a "liberal" or worse.

Sorry but the score still stands at one for Moore and zero for the list.
I know that his facts don't agree with what you thought he said but they do with what he actually said. And that is the game he plays.
And shame on Moore for participating in "deny, obsfucate and misdirect"

Michael Moore wrote:There is no terrorist threat.

Gooberman wrote:I do think those that pull that quote without any context are intentionally being misleading (misleading emoticon omitted)

Yes yes, more right-wing treachery. Anyone can divine the sheer ambiguity of Mr. Moore's position, if only given a bit of context.

By the way, what context, exactly, would that be?

Or was the emoticon supposed to mean you were merely joking? God I hope so. This one made me burst out laughing.

BD

Read the posts BD and then define "terroist threat"
then use what you have read of Moore's comments to decide what his definition of "terroist threat" is. Compare the two.
Do they match?
If not, is it possible that a "terroist threat" exists in one difinition and not in the other?

By the way, what context, exactly, would that be?

Clearly you have been skiming.

Gooberman wrote:

By the way, what context, exactly, would that be?

Clearly you have been skiming. (sic)

A phrase that is fast becoming the favorite dodge around here.

I read Moore's "explanation" you quoted above. But it doesn't address how the statement "(t)here is no terrorist threat" is misleading when taken out of context. Unless I'm mistaken, his statement wasn't made during that interview.

So maybe you can explain the "context" in which the statement was made that would correct the reader's misperception that Moore believes there is no terrorist threat.

Anxiously awaiting,


BD

Bold something wrote:Unless I'm mistaken, his statement wasn't made during that interview.

Gooberman wrote:the quote originated from his book ya know

Yup, I guessed right. You would have known where the statement was made if you had read the thread. I don't feel like retyping everything for you. Read the thread, then ask questions. I really have gone over this already, so yes, I am dodging doing it a second time.

Ford Prefect wrote:Read the posts BD and then define "terroist threat"
then use what you have read of Moore's comments to decide what his definition of "terroist (sic) threat" is. Compare the two.
Do they match?
If not, is it possible that a "terroist (sic) threat" exists in one difinition (sic) and not in the other?

Ahhhh. I see, it's the "Free to Be You and Me" analysis.

In the World of FreetoBeYouandMe, language has no objectively verifiable meaning, it has a chameleon-like quality that changes, depending on who is the person perceiving.

I like it. I like it bunches. Let me give it a whirl here.

"There is no Canada." Yes, yes, I feel better already.

Let's think about it. There is no terrorist threat ... on Mars. At worst, the terrorist threat there is pretty attenuated, I think we can both agree.

Gooberman feels the odds of his being killed in a terrorist attack are small. He's quite right. If we measure Gooberman's time left on earth (hopefully, a long and healthy time), against the probability of a terrorist attack within the next, say 50 years, and factor in the geographical proximity of the attack(s) (i.e., will Gooberman be within sufficient proximity of the attack to die or be injured) -- yup, Goob's probably safe.

Of course, that's little solace to the families and friends of those thousands of American souls who died in the World Trade Center attacks.

But hey, "there is no terrorist threat". There are only, to use Michael Moore's words, there are only "terrorist incidents".


BD

That was a fair post, give me a sec ill respond.

Gooberman wrote:

Bold something wrote:Unless I'm mistaken, his statement wasn't made during that interview.

Gooberman wrote:the quote originated from his book ya know

Yup, I guessed right. You would have known where the statement was made if you had read the thread. I don't feel like retyping everything for you. Read the thread, then ask questions. I really have gone over this already, so yes, I am dodging doing it a second time.

Ooooooooooh sorry, that's not the answer we were looking for!

Now, I assume you have this book (I don't). And search as I may per your (very stern) directive, above, I just don't find any material from that book in any of your responses that would provide the "context" out of which a more clear meaning of Mr. Moore's true intentions might be divined.

So maybe you could just crack open the book, and type in (if it's not too much trouble) the sentence preceding, and the sentence following, Moore's assertion that there "is no terrorist threat". That way, we can all enjoy and understand the context to which you make reference

But then again it could be you're just wrong attributing the quote to the book. I'm not sure if this link is authoritative enough for you, but it sure sounds like Mikey Moore to me:

"There is no terrorist threat."

Go Here - Click Trailer

Maybe he just likes saying it a lot.

Contextually yours,


BD

Is there a "lighting threat"?
According to the National Weather service

In the United States, an average of 67 people are killed each year by lightning.

So in the last three years there have been approx. 180 people killed by lighting in the continental U.S. and none killed by terroist acts.
Should the "lightning alert" level be orange today?
Should every American spend at least part of his/her day worrying about the threat of lightning? Should it govern your day to day activities?
Well... yes to the last one if your golfing in Florida and the clouds look a bit nasty, but you get my point which is the same as Moore's point and the same as many other commentators who feel the threat of terroism on U.S. soil is being used to frighten U.S. citizens into supporting a certain political agenda.
And discounting lightning as a threat to each and every American's safety and life might also be

little solace to the families and friends of those

killed by lightning.

Ford Prefect wrote:So in the last three years there have been approx. 180 people killed by lighting in the continental U.S. and none killed by terroist acts.

And in the same sentence people will deny that Bush has anything to do with the lack of terrorism on American soil.

Make up your mind! Either terrorist attacks are down because Bush is doing his job, or they are up because he isn't. And last time I checked they were down.

You can't have it both ways, saying that Bush has failed to protect America and that's why he's bad, and then pointing to the lack of terrorist attacks and say that there is therefore no reason for Bush to spend so much money and create so much fear about terrorism.

Ford Prefect wrote:Is there a "light(n)ing threat"? According to the National Weather service
In the United States, an average of 67 people are killed each year by lightning.

So in the last three years there have been approx. 180 people killed by lighting in the continental U.S. and none killed by terroist acts. Should the "lightning alert" level be orange today?

Ah. So you and Mr. Moore would hold no distinction between an horrific, calculated attack by terrorists against a sovereign nation that kills nearly 3000 Americans -- and the loss of lives lost due to random lightning strikes.

Right.

What "political agenda" you think is being furthered by people who believe we should ramp up our country's defenses against such attacks? Perhaps the oil-crazed Bushies are actually behind the 911 attacks, do you think? An unstated, underhanded agenda to further our twisted purpose of fostering puppet governments in oil-rich nations, for the purpose of advancing our imperialistic world domination!!!

Maybe not.

BD

I am not only a naive impressionable idiot,

I am also very, very SORRY!

Give the world a break you guys. All of Europe has lived with terrorism for decades without this level of panic. I was in England in the mid eighties and there were signs everywhere to look out for suspicious packages. The IRA was active in those days.

NO ONE, not even Michael Moore denies that terroism is real, that it is important, that action must be taken to reduce and combat it.

Read that again in case you didn't get the meaining of it.

But what level of anxiety do the citizens of the USA need to be stirred up to? At what point is there a change from caution and corrective action to fear-mongering for political gain. Moore and others think that the Bush administration has crossed that line.
I don't know that I agree with them but this hysterical condemnation of their position seems to make a case for them being right.

NOTE: I am carefully searching my post for a comment that could be taken as a denial that terroist attacks on U.S. soil have not occured in the last three years. I don't find it so I guess we are back to "deny, obsfucate and misdirect" again.

Ford Prefect wrote:Give the world a break you guys. All of Europe has lived with terrorism for decades without this level of panic. I was in England in the mid eighties and there were signs everywhere to look out for suspicious packages. The IRA was active in those days.

NO ONE, not even Michael Moore denies that terroism is real, that it is important, that action must be taken to reduce and combat it.

Read that again in case you didn't get the meaining of it.

But what level of anxiety do the citizens of the USA need to be stirred up to? At what point is there a change from caution and corrective action to fear-mongering for political gain. Moore and others think that the Bush administration has crossed that line.
I don't know that I agree with them but this hysterical condemnation of their position seems to make a case for them being right.

NOTE: I am carefully searching my post for a comment that could be taken as a denial that terroist attacks on U.S. soil have not occured in the last three years. I don't find it so I guess we are back to "deny, obsfucate and misdirect" again.

Panic. Hysteria. Hmmm.

Let me try and redirect this back to the subject.

If Michael Moore says "There is no terrorist threat" (by the way, I think you're misspelling that word), it's completely fair to take issue with that comment.

Now you guys can point to his subsequent "explanations", and gee whiz, maybe we're talking about matters of degree. We all think terrorism is not nice. Fair enough. Some of us propose to end it, notwithstanding your remarkable suggestion that Europe provides a template for handling terrorism.

If you think what you've seen so far is "panic" and "hysteria", I suggest you buckle your seat belt. The party's only getting started.

BD